RE: 1.1 suggestion

John M Slatin writes:
 > 
 > The "new proposed wording for Guideline 1.1" below attempts to address the problems Gregg pointed out. 
This is excellent work; minor comments are included below.
 > 
 > 
 > Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 1.1
 > 1.	Text alternatives are explicitly associated with non-text
 > content through markup or contex [sic], and one of the following is true:.

This raises the old question of the best generic term to use in place
of "markup", where we do not want to restrict the application of the
criterion to markup languages. Markup or data model is used in 1.3,
perhaps "markup, a data model, or context". Whatever we choose, it
should be consistent with 1.3.

Also, why "text alternatives" rather than the well established WCAG
1.0 term "text equivalents?" If we mean the same thing, perhaps we
should use the same terminology for consistency. If the meaning is
different then I think a new term is desirable to avoid confusions, in
which case "text alternative" is as good as any.

 > a.	For non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives identify the purpose or function of the non-text content; or,
 > b.	for non-text content that is used to convey information, there are text alternatives that convey the same information; or,  

perhaps "the text alternatives convey the same information"; the
existence requirement is already specified above, I think. If it isn't
sufficiently clear, perhaps the first success criterion should read
"text alternatives are provided, and are explicitly associated..."


 > c.	for non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory experience, such as music or visual art, text alternatives identify and describe the non-text content.
Fair enough. Maybe this justifies dropping the term "equivalent", as
they aren't genuinely equivalent to the non-text content (or perhaps
they are, given a suitably defined equivalence relation). I think this
is where dissatisfaction with "text equivalent" arose and I am not
persuaded that it is a strong argument.

 > 2.	Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality  can be bypassed by assistive technology.
In the examples section, be sure to provide an example of this one. In
what conceivable circumstances is it not trivially satisfied?
 > 
 > Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 1.1
 > 1.	Text alternatives can be accessed without an extreme  change of context.
 > 
 > Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 1.1
 > 1.	For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes descriptions of all important visual information as well as  transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds.
 > 
 > 
 > </new proposed wording for guideline 1.1>
 >

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 02:18:01 UTC